[micheal_can]

Lets have a serious discussion about the Northlander returning and how we can learn from that to expand passenger rail across the country.

It started in 1979 with the TEE trains. At the time, those trains were almost 20 years old. They were retired in 1992.

In 1992, they used refurbished GO single level coaches that were built in1967. They were 25 years old. The service ended in 2012. Those cars would have been 45 years old.

Within the next few years, around 10-15 years later, the service will return, but with new equipment.

Via Rail/CN did run the Northland, but I am having trouble finding the history of it.

The line, north of Washago has about 100,000 people living in the cities and towns along it's route. The route is about 800km long and will take about 8-12hours each way. It used to run 6days a week, but this return is planned to see 5-7 days a week.

So, why is it coming back?
With about 100,000 people living along the route,and it being about 8-12hour trip, that does not sound like it should come back.
It is politics.
Vic Fedeli is the current PC MPP for the riding North Bay is in. He was the mayor during 2003-2010.
When the Northlander was cancelled, Monique Smith, a Liberal MPP was elected in the riding. This riding bonces back and forth between Liberals and PCs over the decades. Before her, it was Mike Harris, the Premier of Ontario's riding.
Back when Vic was mayor he did all he could to try to stop the divestment of the ONTC, the operator of the Northlander. The ONTC was under the Ministry of Northern Development, even though it is and was primarily a transportation company. It used to own the telecommunications company Ontera. It also used to own the NorOntair airline. Since it's inception in 1902, the ONTC, then the T%NO has been one of the biggest employers in the city. (My family has worked there likely since it opened, but at least since the 1940s)
Vic has run on restoring the Northlander. The population along the route is aging. Many people need to go to Toronto or the GTA for specialist appointments. Yes, there is a bus route along the highway. Winter though makes the bus useless. Regularly, many winter storms close the highway. Not because of the snow, but because of the accidents it causes. Peruse through The Nugget. the local paper of North Bay and you will find the closure of highway 11is a fairly regular occurrence. There has been one storm that closed 11, 17 and 144; effectively cutting off people in the north from Toronto.
Yes, winter can cause problems with rail. A friend of mine who worked for CN told me winter sneaks up on them every year. The challenge is building air in the trains. Snow, however, is not a problem.A blizzard can happen and so long as they can see the lights, they can travel track speed.

So, the only real reason that rail is returning to the highway 11 corridor is because of politics. No one can make any other case for it. It is too long for city pairs. The population is too low. So, the only real reason is politics.

So, I feel what we need to improve Via outside of the Corridor is politics.

 

[Urban Sky]

You really didn’t get anything of what was directed directly at you by maybe half a dozen contributers here. We are talking against a wall, as you seem completely uninterested in anything else than preaching to us. Everything which we write to you is misinterpreted as an invitation to dump on us more of the same, even if we explicilty write that it’s the opposite.

The only upside to this is that everyone who still bothers to respond to you here should be able to predict what kind of post he or she will receive from you as a reply…

 

[micheal_can]

You really didn’t get anything of what was directed directly at you by maybe half a dozen contributers here. We are talking against a wall, as you seem completely uninterested in anything else than preaching to us. Everything which we write to you is misinterpreted as an invitation to dump on us more of the same, even if we explicilty write that it’s the opposite.

The only upside to this is that everyone who still bothers to respond to you here should be able to predict what kind of post he or she will receive from you as a reply…

So,you are saying there is a robust business case to return the Northlander?
Lets hear it.

 

[micheal_can]

When talking about how we got here, ignoring the politics ignores how governments work.

I will show it with 3 existing Via routes and one canceled Via route.
Jasper - Prince Rupert
Sudbury - White River
Canadian (CP)
Canadian (CN)

Lets start with Sudbury - White River route. It uses the Budd RDC. Minor maintenance is done locally in Sudbury. Major maintenance is done in Toronto, about 350km away.It is never longer than 3 RDC cars of different types.

Jasper - Prince Rupert uses the same fleet as the Canadian. Generally speaking it is 3 cars long.

When the 1990s cuts were done, on the Prairies, They were done under the new Liberal elected government. If you look at the map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Canadian_Federal_Elecion_1993_-_Results_by_Riding.svg

You will notice that Calgary was Reform. Regina was also Reform or NDP. However, Look at Edmonton and Saskatoon.They both were Liberal seats. So, when you need to gut something where are you cutting? Most parties cut where they won't get hurt in the polls.
Look at 1997 Notice how Edmonton still has some red?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Canadian_federal_election%2C_1997_results_by_riding.svg

There may be the argument that the Jasper- Prince Rupert is the reason the Canadian follows the CN route due to maintenance. An armchair planner could see how it could have been extended to Edmonton and could have been serviced there. It could have even been extended to Calgary if they really needed that connection.

Subsides are another argument for cancelling the Canadian (CP) while keeping the Canadian (CN). However, the subsidy was lower for the CP route than the CN. If this was about pure cost savings, the CN route would have been canceled, not the CP route. Interestingly, had they canceled the CN route, they could have also canceled the Sudbury - White River as it follows the CP route. But they didn't.

So, when someone wants to ignore the politics and argue it was money when they canceled the one that was less subsidized, they miss how things need to be done to bring anything meaningful back.

 

[micheal_can]

We can see how politics, not ROE is what dictates intercity rail.
So,my thinking is that we need the politics to be right to return rail somewhere it isn't,or to increase service.

Why is HFR being funded?
It connects the #1,2 and 4 highest population metros. So,there are ridings to be won or lost along the route. It may never be the issue people will vote for or against in an election, but it can add or detract from the rest of the reasons.

And if it is HSR that gets built, that could be even more to sway some voters.

 

[lenaitch]

Subsides are another argument for cancelling the Canadian (CP) while keeping the Canadian (CN). However, the subsidy was lower for the CP route than the CN. If this was about pure cost savings, the CN route would have been canceled, not the CP route. Interestingly, had they canceled the CN route, they could have also canceled the Sudbury - White River as it follows the CP route. But they didn't.

But they likely would have had to operate a remote service from Sudbury to Winnipeg (or at least Sioux Lookout), a much longer distance that Sudbury to White River

 

[micheal_can]

But they likely would have had to operate a remote service from Sudbury to Winnipeg (or at least Sioux Lookout), a much longer distance that Sudbury to White River

That could have been a posibility.

 

[lenaitch]

That could have been a posibility.

Which would have been much more costly, which was my point. Agree with the result or not, the goal of the cuts was to reduce government subsidies to VIA.

 

[micheal_can]

Which would have been much more costly, which was my point. Agree with the result or not, the goal of the cuts was to reduce government subsidies to VIA.

Maybe not though. Maybe contracting out for different equipment combined with the higher subsidized route would have been more expensive. It would be nice to get a hold of whether they even looked at that option. If they did, it would be interesting to see the financial reasoning. Maybe what we have was the lowest subsidized option.

 

[lenaitch]

Maybe not though. Maybe contracting out for different equipment combined with the higher subsidized route would have been more expensive. It would be nice to get a hold of whether they even looked at that option. If they did, it would be interesting to see the financial reasoning. Maybe what we have was the lowest subsidized option.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I'm not sure different equipment would have made much of a difference on route that, just spit-balling, is at least three times longer.

You are quite free to make FOI requests and do other research if you don't accept the input here.

Regardless, the discussions here and other allied threads are becoming circular, and I'm getting dizzy, so I'm out.

 

[micheal_can]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I'm not sure different equipment would have made much of a difference on route that, just spit-balling, is at least three times longer.

You are quite free to make FOI requests and do other research if you don't accept the input here.

Regardless, the discussions here and other allied threads are becoming circular, and I'm getting dizzy, so I'm out.

Sorry. I don't intend things to get circular. Mind you, when looking at the past, ifit start to get circular, to me, it seems that it is not a singular reason.

... now to figure out how to word the FOI to get what would show the cost savings.

 

[ssiguy2]

VIA is as much a political apparatus as it is a passenger rail service. Only in Canada would you be able to take the train from Prince George to Prince Rupert but not from Edmonton to Calgary.

 

[micheal_can]

VIA is as much a political apparatus as it is a passenger rail service. Only in Canada would you be able to take the train from Prince George to Prince Rupert but not from Edmonton to Calgary.

Anyone who wants to argue that the one to Prince Rupert is there because it is a remote service with no other access, there is a highway that follows its route.

 

[Urban Sky]

Since you seem to acknowledge that this discussion was off-topic over at the „VIA Rail“ thread, I will dump my reply here:

***

It is interesting. You answered the "Why" without me even saying why. The reason we should invest in services that will require a subsidy is the benefits to the population who live along it.

I never said that „requiring a subsidy“ should be a knock-out criteria (otherwise, we‘d also need to stop expanding transit services and infrastructure!), but that alternatives to the proposed projects should be considered and given the preference, wherever they provide a much better value-for-money, so that the total amount invested into any public transport services and infrastructure achieves the greatest overall benefit for the entire population.

To me, if the intangible benefits exist that warrant it,then it should be done. Those intangible benefits cannot be fleshed out by the 'bean counters', but can be expressed by those that would use the service. Things like not wanting to park or drive in Toronto, not having their trip canceled due to snow, or not spending multiple nights in a hotel are all intangible, but are things that should be considered.

Factors which affect ridership are (if the methodology is appropriate!) included in the economic assessment of any project, but what you describe are „personal preferences“, which rightly affect your personal choice between the available transportation modes (such as your stated willingness to drive three hours to North Bay, just to take the train to Toronto), but these personal preferences are not (and should not be) taken into consideration when a government makes funding decisions.

You talk of city pairs as a means to talk about service to them to justify them. Connecting SSM and Sudbury and North Bay to each other, and to Toronto should be the next thing that the province looks at if,compared to their planning, the Northlander becomes a success.Via won't, and really shouldn't.

… which is why this discussion belongs into this thread and not the „VIA Rail“ one.

So, the next logical group would be the province. This isn't fantasy if you live here any more than the GO extensions to Bolton or Peterborough are. For here, a fantasy would be HSR, or even HFR.

If you would finally grasp how much their fixed costs and Economy of Scale make passenger trains (especially in a two-driver environment) a mass-transportation mode (i.e. a mode which can only be economical when it transports hundreds rather than just a few dozen passengers), you would finally realize how much of a fantasy it is to dream about them on any of the routes where you believe they ought to be revived…

[Edit: Removed the word „finally“ from the opening sentence and the exclamation mark from the second-last part of my reply, as both made my post sound needlessly confrontational. Sorry!]

 

[micheal_can]

Since you finally seem to acknowledge that this discussion was off-topic over at the „VIA Rail“ thread, I will dump my reply here:

Remember, like all the other times you point out the off topicness of it, I never bring it up.

I never said that „requiring a subsidy“ should be a knock-out criteria (otherwise, we‘d also need to stop expanding transit services and infrastructure!), but that alternatives to the proposed projects should be considered and given the preference, wherever they provide a much better value-for-money, so that the total amount invested into any public transport services and infrastructure achieves the greatest overall benefit for the entire population.

I don't know if you have ever used those words, but you have eluded to it.
For instance, in this reply, you still talk money. I have highlighted it.
With that attitude, it is time to shut down the PBX because id does not provide much benefit for the entire province of ON.

Factors which affect ridership are (if the methodology is appropriate!) included in the economic assessment of any project, but what you describe are „personal preferences“, which rightly affect your personal choice between the available transportation modes (such as your stated willingness to drive three hours to North Bay, just to take the train to Toronto), but these personal preferences are not (and should not be) taken into consideration when a government makes funding decisions.

I am 2 hours, not 3. I am about 3 hours to Toronto.

Personal preference needs to, otherwise things like GO would never be a good idea. It is literally the personal preference of not driving in rush hour and not parking downtown that is the draw. That is a personal preference.

… which is why this discussion belongs into this thread and not the „VIA Rail“ one!

Then shut down everyone else that bring it up. You only try to shut me down.

If you would finally grasp how much their fixed costs and Economy of Scale make passenger trains (especially in a two-driver environment) a mass-transportation mode (i.e. a mode which can only be economical when it transports hundreds rather than just a few dozen passengers), you would finally realize how much of a fantasy it is to dream about them on any of the routes where you believe they ought to be revived…

A daily train between city pairs of ~400 km is not a fantasy. Change my mind. Give me something that would actually say that it is a fantasy